Thursday, April 20, 2017

Fair Play and Racial Bias in the NBA

In most National Basketball Association (NBA) games,
we see a white coach on the sidelines and mostly black players on the court. We
also see players being benched and put back in depending on how well they play,
their foul trouble, and the matchup with the other team. Except for the oddity
of having a league of mostly black players produce mostly white coaches, the
NBA looks like it is ruled by performance only, because winning is so important
and performance is so easy to assess. But it is ruled by more than performance.
White coaches use white players more than they should, and black coaches use
black players more than they should, compared with others who perform equally
well.

This is not a special feature of the NBA. Favoring
workers of the same race is well known and happens everywhere, for three
different reasons. We now know more about it because a paper by Letian Zhang in Administrative Science Quarterly has looked at this unfair treatment and
explored it in detail never before seen. The findings are important for any
kind of business because they show the origin of same-race favoritism, how it
can be reduced, and why there are limits to reducing it.

First consider the origins of this favoritism. Many people
think that preferential treatment occurs because employers judge each person as
being as good as the average person with similar characteristics. This
explanation is often used for why women are treated less well (supposedly they
are less stable employees than men) and can also account for racial
preferences. But in this case, this explanation falls flat because black
basketball players are on average better than white. A variation is that employers
look at each person as being as good as they think the average is for someone
with those characteristics, but they are wrong about the average. For example,
managers may think that women are less stable, but their estimate is off
because men, who (granted) get pregnant less often, quit more often than women.
Both of these reasons for favoritism should adjust quickly once a manager gets
to know an individual’s performance, which happens very fast in the NBA because
of the excellent statistics on player performance.

But there is another reason for favoritism that is
more insidious: racial preference. Simply put, people prefer to interact with others
of the same race. Looking closely at the data, Zhang found that in NBA playoff
games and close games, race no longer influenced someone’s playing time; only
performance did. That’s exactly what we would expect from racial preference,
because it is easier to treat workers unfairly when the stakes are low.

So how can this effect be reduced? Well, time reduces
unfair treatment. In the NBA, the unfair playing time is reduced the longer a
coach works with the same player, but it takes more than two years for a player
to be treated almost fairly by a coach of another race. This length of time
doesn’t match up with performance knowledge, but it matches something else: managers
have a harder time treating someone unfairly when they get to know that person
well enough to see him or her as an individual, not as a racial stereotype.
This is the “good black player” effect in the NBA.

But if managers can start treating someone of
another race fairly after a period of time, will they then start seeing others
of another race as individuals, too, and treat them fairly sooner? The answer
is no, at least in the NBA. Getting to know someone of a different race as an
individual does not mean that fair treatment is extended to others; they still
have to prove themselves one by one. And that should give pause to all
organizations, because it says that even the NBA, with its highly integrated
teams and its careful and timely objective performance measures (not to mention
the high stakes), has a remaining racial component in the treatment of workers.

The conclusion is clear, and different from what
many organizations do. Fair treatment is so hard that it is not possible to
rely only on the immediate supervisor; there also have to be formal processes
in place to make sure it happens.